Techdirt. Stories filed under "wireless"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "wireless"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Tue, 6 Feb 2018 06:14:37 PSTTrump's FCC Pats Itself On The Back For A Historically Stupid YearKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180129/07532839106/trumps-fcc-pats-itself-back-historically-stupid-year.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180129/07532839106/trumps-fcc-pats-itself-back-historically-stupid-year.shtml
If you've been playing along at home, Trump's FCC hasn't been particularly kind to consumers, competition, or the health of the internet. It has, however, been a massive boon to major ISPs terrified of disruption and competition, especially those looking to forge new media monopolies where they dominate both the conduit -- and the content -- coming to the home.

And that's before you even get to Pai's attack on net neutrality, potentially one of the least popular tech policy decisions in the history of the modern internet. That entire calamity is a universe unto itself, with the FCC currently under investigation for turning a blind eye to identity theft and fraud during the open comment period, as well as for bizarrely making up a DDOS in a ham-fisted attempt to downplay the public's disdain for Pai's agenda. It will take many years and numerous lawsuits for the problems with Pai's rushed repeal of the rules to fully materialize.

With Pai's tenure seen as a shitshow in the wake of the net neutrality repeal, the FCC recently tried to undertake an image reclamation effort. That came in the form of a press release (pdf) lauding what the FCC calls a "year of action and accomplishment" in terms of "protecting consumers," "promoting investment," and "bridging the digital divide." You just know the FCC under Pai is doing a good job because, uh, graphics:

Amusingly, the lion's share of the agency's listed "accomplishments" were noncontroversial projects simply continued from the last FCC under Tom Wheeler. That includes efforts to open additional spectrum for wireless use, attempts to speed up cell tower placement, or ongoing efforts to reduce robocalls (the impacts of which aren't apparent). Many of the listed efforts are just the FCC doing its job, ranging from conducting an investigation into the recently botched Hawaii ballistic missile snafu, to "approving new wireless charging tech" that nobody thought should be blocked anyway.

Elsewhere, the agency's accomplishment list engages in willful omission. For example, while the FCC pats itself on the back for creating a "broadband deployment advisory council," it ignores the fact that said counsel is plagued by allegations of cronyism and dysfunction in the wake of recent resignations. The FCC similarly pats itself on the back for the agency's Puerto Rico hurricane response, despite the fact that locals there say the federal government and the FCC failed spectacularly in its response to the storm.

But it's the agency's claims of consumer protection that continue to deliver the best unintentional comedy. As you might expect, Pai's FCC continues to claim that killing net neutrality rules was a good thing because the rules devastated sector investment, a proven lie the agency simply can't stop repeating:

"Voted to restore the longstanding, bipartisan light-touch
regulatory framework that fostered rapid Internet growth, openness, and freedom for nearly 20 years. This action reversed the FCC’s 2015 imposition of heavy-handed Title II utility-style government regulation on Internet providers that discouraged investment in next-generation networks.

Another "accomplishment" cited by the FCC is its decision to kill a net neutrality investigation into AT&T and Verizon's abuse of zero rating (exempting select content from usage caps if companies pay more). The previous FCC was just about to ding both companies for exempting their own content from usage caps, having noted how caps can be used as an anti-competitive weapon, driving up costs for consumers and competitors alike. Trump's FCC is not only proud to have killed that inquiry, but insists doing so helps the nation's poor:

"Free Consumer Data—Ended a 2016 investigation into wireless carriers’ free-data offerings. These free-data plans have proven to be popular among consumers, particularly low-income Americans, and have enhanced competition in the wireless marketplace."

The accomplishment list pays heavy lip service to the agency's efforts to "close the digital divide," a goal we've repeatedly noted is consistently undermined by other agency policies like killing net neutrality or the FCC's privacy rules (which could have prevented ISPs from charging you more for privacy). For example Pai's FCC is slowly dismantling Lifeline, a modest $10 per month telecom subsidy for poor people begun by Reagan and expanded under Bush Jr. The FCC is also working overtime to protect the sector from competition on both the business and residential sectors.

Over and over, the FCC's accomplishment list conflates cronyism with consumer welfare. For example, the FCC's self-congratulatory missive crows about the agency having:

"Adopted an order relieving unnecessary regulation in areas where business data services are delivered competitively in order to promote facilities-based investment."

What the FCC actually did is notably different. In reality, the FCC eliminated price caps for broadband data services (BDS), where AT&T and Verizon enjoy a monopoly over the bandwidth used to feed everything from ATMs to cell towers. Not only that, Pai's FCC weakened the definition of "competitive" in this sector to aid these monopolies, declaring a business served by "competitive broadband" if there's one ISP within a half mile. The end result? Higher prices than ever for the small businesses, schools, hospitals and others left without affordable connectivity options.

The FCC's accomplishment list routinely and repeatedly dresses up industry cronyism as progress and transparency. And it dresses up its complete disdain for objective data as a devotion to hard science. For example, the FCC praises itself for the creation of a new "Office of Economics and Analysis" it claims will help "restore the place of economic analysis at the FCC." But as we just got done noting this is the same FCC that just got done ignoring all objective science in its rush to repeal net neutrality, making Pai's purpoted dedication to objective economics laughable.

Fortunately for us, historians, not Ajit Pai, will have the final say on Ajit Pai's accomplishments. And if year one is anything to go by, cronyism, disinformation, a lack of transparency and hubris will be this agency's historical legacy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>mission-accomplishedhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20180129/07532839106Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:42:00 PSTLeaked Trump Plan To 'Nationalize' Nation's 5G Networks A Bizarre, Unrealistic Pipe DreamKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180129/08390639107/leaked-trump-plan-to-nationalize-nations-5g-networks-bizarre-unrealistic-pipe-dream.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180129/08390639107/leaked-trump-plan-to-nationalize-nations-5g-networks-bizarre-unrealistic-pipe-dream.shtml
There's been a lot of hand wringing and hyperventilation over a new report claiming that the Trump administration wants to nationalize the nation's looming fifth-generation (5G) wireless networks, despite the fact the proposal has a snowball's chance in hell of ever actually materializing. According to a leaked PowerPoint deck and memo drafted by a "Senior National Security Council official," the Trump administration wants the U.S. government to build and own a centralized, government-controlled 5G network in order to, purportedly, fight Chinese hackers.

More specifically, the memo claims this plan would be akin to the "21st century equivalent of the Eisenhower National Highway System," creating a "new paradigm" for the wireless industry and for national security. Fear of Chinese hackers drives the proposal from stem to stern, suggesting the plan needs to be completed in three years to protect American interests worldwide:

"The PowerPoint presentation says that the U.S. has to build superfast 5G wireless technology quickly because “China has achieved a dominant position in the manufacture and operation of network infrastructure,” and “China is the dominant malicious actor in the Information Domain.” To illustrate the current state of U.S. wireless networks, the PowerPoint uses a picture of a medieval walled city, compared to a future represented by a photo of lower Manhattan.

The best way to do this, the memo argues, is for the government to build a network itself. It would then rent access to carriers like AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile."

And while the Trump administration running our nationwide wireless infrastructure seems both equal parts fascinating and terrifying, it's hard to take the proposal seriously.

For one thing, it ignores the technical realities of the telecom sector and the path to 5G. Individual carriers like AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile already have their own 5G network builds well underway and spectrum already largely assigned, with commercial launches of the faster, lower-latency standard expected beginning in 2020 or so. Suddenly injecting the United States government into this process at this point makes little to no actual sense, at least for an administration that has stated repeatedly that telecom Utopia is achieved by government letting these entrenched carriers do whatever they'd like.

The proposal also tends to ignore political realities. AT&T and Verizon have more state and federal political influence than nearly any other companies thanks to their already extensive ties to domestic surveillance operations. They don't want their assets seized to help operate such a "nationalized" network, and any effort to do so would prove politically suicidal. That's why Trump's own FCC (you know, the agency that actually regulates publicly-owned airwaves) was quick to release a statement shooting down the proposal:

"I oppose any proposal for the federal government to build and operate a nationwide 5G network. The main lesson to draw from the wireless sector’s development over the past three decades—including American leadership in 4G—is that the market, not government, is best positioned to drive innovation and investment. What government can and should do is to push spectrum into the commercial marketplace and set rules that encourage the private sector to develop and deploy next-generation infrastructure. Any federal effort to construct a nationalized 5G network would be a costly and counterproductive distraction from the policies we need to help the United States win the 5G future."

US Telecom, a lobbying organization backed by AT&T, was just as quick to shoot down the proposal:

"There is nothing that would slam the breaks more quickly on our hard-won momentum to be the leader in the global race for 5G network deployment more quickly than the federal government stepping-in to build those networks. The best way to future-proof the nation’s communications networks is to continue to encourage and incentivize America’s broadband companies -- working hand-in-glove with the rest of the internet ecosystem, and in partnership with government, to continue do what we do best: invest, innovate, and lead."

When I first read the proposal, my instinct was that it was just the random brain fart of some natsec advisor who doesn't understand how telecom works or the mammoth influence companies like AT&T have over such policy. And that seems to be supported by subsequent leaks in the wake of the memo's release:

"As multiple White House officials confirmed to Recode on Sunday, the document as published is dated. They also stressed it had merely been floated by a staff member, not a reflection of some imminent, major policy announcement — and probably might never be."

To be clear, none of this is to say nationalizing networks couldn't work or be beneficial in an ideal world that actually respected civil liberties. Data has suggested a nationwide, taxpayer-funded fiber network where ISPs come in and compete (aka "open access") would potentially provide America with cheaper, better service than the pricey dreck currently passing as American broadband. Of course, given incumbent ISP influence that proposal will never actually materialize either, since to do it correctly would mean increasing competition in the broken telecom market, and we certainly wouldn't want that.

That said, the proposal does engage in all the usual hand-wringing about how the existing $700 billion defense budget isn't enough to counter the "Chinese threat" to American industry. So while the proposal isn't likely to result in nationalized networks, any runner up proposal is likely to just double down of all of our worst habits to date, including throwing countless billions at companies like AT&T, bone-grafting them to our global intelligence apparatus, then ignoring all the ways this power has been routinely and consistently abused.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>intern's-brain-farthttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20180129/08390639107Thu, 19 Oct 2017 03:23:00 PDTWireless Carriers Again Busted Collecting, Selling User Data Without Consent Or Opt Out ToolsKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171017/11071138421/wireless-carriers-again-busted-collecting-selling-user-data-without-consent-opt-out-tools.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171017/11071138421/wireless-carriers-again-busted-collecting-selling-user-data-without-consent-opt-out-tools.shtml
A few years ago, Verizon and AT&T were busted for covertly modifying wireless user data packets in order to track users around the internet. Verizon used the technology to track browsing behavior for two years before the practice was even discovered by security researchers. It took another six months of public shaming before Verizon was even willing to offer opt out tools. And while the FCC ultimately gave Verizon a $1.3 million wrist slap, it highlighted how we don't really understand the privacy implications of what mobile carriers are up to, much less have real standards in place to protect us from abuse in the modern mobile era.

While notably different in scope and application, these same companies were again caught this week collecting and selling user information without user consent or working opt out tools.

Earlier this week Philip Neustrom, co-founder of Shotwell Labs, discovered something interesting and documented his findings in this blog post. Neustrom discovered a pair of websites that, when visited by a mobile device over a cellular connection, appeared to easily glean numerous personal visitor details, including the visiting user's name, some billing and location data, and more. Users simply needed to input a zip code, and the carriers providing your cellular service seemingly provide a wide array of personal data to these services without user consent or an opt out.

On the surface, the intention behind these services isn't particularly nefarious. These websites are examples of fraud prevention services companies like Payfone offer to companies, employers and organizations to help verify a visitor is who they say they are. Visitors to a specific website have their data immediately cross-referenced with billing, phone number, or even GPS data that's provided by wireless carriers. The problem, as Neustrom documents, is that mobile carriers don't appear to be adequately informing users this data is being collected or sold:

"But what these services show us is even more alarming: US telcos appear to be selling direct, non-anonymized, real-time access to consumer telephone data to third party services — not just federal law enforcement officials — who are then selling access to that data. Given the trivial “consent” step required by these services and unlikely audit controls, it appears that these services could be used to track or de-anonymize nearly anyone with a cell phone in the United States with potentially no oversight.

He also found that the existing opt out mechanisms used by T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T and other mobile carriers don't do a damn thing to prevent this data from being monetized:

"AT&T’s “consumer choice” opt-out at https://att.com/cmpchoice didn’t appear to do anything to stop this, even after waiting the stated 48 hours. All of the demos were still working for me on the morning of 2017–10–15 after I had opted out on 2017–10–13. Many users on Twitter and elsewhere also report that AT&T’s opt-out process doesn’t do anything here. Verizon’s “opt-out” pages also may not do anything to prevent this, either (A, B)."

The report was seemingly a bit too obscure to get much mainstream media attention, but obviously hit a nerve all the same. Shortly after publication, both websites -- and their previously public API documentation were pulled offline by Payfone. Similarly, video of a joint AT&T Danal presentation from 2014 explaining how this technology works was pulled from YouTube. The security community was surprised to learn of the technology, with some offering more concise analysis than others:

You'll recall that for years mobile carriers like Verizon argued that we don't need meaningful privacy protections because they always self-regulate within the boundaries of good taste. Carriers re-used this justification earlier this year when they convinced the Trump administration and GOP to kill FCC broadband privacy protections. But it's hard to hold these companies accountable for privacy violations when even security researchers aren't aware it's happening, and unlike the realm of Google, Facebook or other advertisers, a lack of competition in the telecom sector means less organic competitive pressure to behave.

This week's discovery is just another example of how mobile carrier self-regulation isn't working, and some modest rules requiring more transparency (and mandatory, opt out or opt in tools) would have been of immense public benefit.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>privacy-no-longer-existshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20171017/11071138421Fri, 6 Oct 2017 06:27:00 PDTAnybody Claiming Net Neutrality Rules Killed Broadband Investment Is Lying To YouKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171005/09400638350/anybody-claiming-net-neutrality-rules-killed-broadband-investment-is-lying-to-you.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171005/09400638350/anybody-claiming-net-neutrality-rules-killed-broadband-investment-is-lying-to-you.shtml
In 2015 the FCC passed some fairly basic net neutrality rules designed to keep broadband duopolies from abusing a lack of broadband competition to hamstring internet competitors. Despite the endless pearl clutching from ISP lobbyists and allies, the rules were relatively modest, falling well short of the more comprehensive rules we've seen passed in places like Canada, Japan, and India. Still, ISPs have spent every day since trying to claim that the rules somehow utterly devastated broadband sector investment, despite the fact that independent economists and journalists have repeatedly proven that to be a lie.

The latest case in point: a new report by Deutsche Bank Markets Research highlights how the same ISPs that claim broadband investment is in the tank are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the fiber needed to fuel fifth-generation wireless (5G) and smart city IoT technologies. AT&T and Verizon, usually the first companies you'll see whining about how net neutrality ruined Christmas, are at the front of the pack:

“Telecoms have become much more public signaling their intent to increase fiber investment, with AT&T and Verizon leading the spending ramp,” said Deutsche Bank Markets Research..."After establishing its “One Fiber” initiative, Verizon signed two key fiber supply deals: it will spend $1 billion with Corning to buy 1.5 million miles of fiber over three years and a $300 million deal with Prysmian to buy 1 million miles of fiber over 3 years. AT&T is being no less aggressive....What’s driving the ongoing fiber expansion plans is the ongoing mission to have converged networks that simultaneously support FTTH and 5G wireless services.

Verizon and AT&T's investment is paralleled by France's Altice, which has been gobbling up US cable companies and plans to upgrade their entire footprint to fiber to the home over the next few years (clearly net neutrality rules simply terrified them). Comcast, another big pusher of the investment apocalypse narrative, is also tripping over itself to spend millions on additional fiber and DOCSIS 3.1 upgrades. All told, the bank estimates that this investment explosion should reach $175 billion over the next decade as these companies position themselves for the wireless smart cities of tomorrow. And it's only accelerating:

"Deutsche Bank said in order achieve these goals, its “proprietary top-down fiber model suggests spending on fiber to the home will total ~$175B over the next decade (an additional $25-30B will likely go towards 5G).” Verizon and AT&T are clearly leading this charge with plans to either build out and augment existing fiber routes by building their own facilities, renting, or purchasing regional assets. “Telecom/cable companies are increasingly talking about the convergence of fiber to the home and the 5G rollout as one large investment cycle that will likely ramp further in 2018,” Deutsche Bank said.

That is, if you're playing along at home, not a fucking slowdown, and anybody that continues to push this flimsy narrative is either lying to you, or has been duped by years of lobbyist nonsense. Of course industry executives have been quietly admitting the net neutrality induced investment apocalypse has been bullshit all along, but with their other hand they've been paying an army of economists, astroturfers, think tankers, fauxcademics and other policy voices to claim otherwise -- all in the hopes of gutting what's already tepid regulatory oversight of one the least competitive industries in America.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>chicken-little-for-hirehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20171005/09400638350Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:55:00 PDTMission Accomplished: Ajit Pai's FCC Declares Wireless Competition Issues FixedKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170927/09094438296/mission-accomplished-ajit-pais-fcc-declares-wireless-competition-issues-fixed.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170927/09094438296/mission-accomplished-ajit-pais-fcc-declares-wireless-competition-issues-fixed.shtml
The FCC is required by law to offer an annual report on the state of competition in the broadband industry. Depending on who's in power, and how eager they are to downplay the lack of said competition to the benefit of industry, these reports often provide comical insight into how the regulator fiddles with data to justify policy apathy. Under George W. Bush's presidency, the FCC declared the wireless industry perfectly competitive. Under the Obama administration, the FCC refused to state one way or the other whether the sector is competitive. Neither party has what you'd call courage when it comes to calling a spade a spade.

"The 20th Report reviews many factors indicating that the wireless marketplace is, indeed, effectively competitive. I won’t repeat them here; that’s why we have the report. But looking at the bigger picture, most reasonable people see a fiercely competitive marketplace. For example, since the FCC’s last report in 2016, all four national carriers have rolled out new or improved unlimited plans. This is strong, incontrovertible evidence.

And looking at the wireless industry from a superficial level, many would likely agree. But look under the hood and things aren't quite as rosy as Pai would lead you to believe. For one, even with T-Mobile disrupting AT&T and Verizon, these companies still largely engage in theatrical non-price competition, resulting in Americans paying more money for slower speeds than most developed nations. There's also the fact that AT&T and Verizon have a duopoly stranglehold over the special access and tower backhaul market, allowing them to drive up operational costs for competitors like T-Mobile and Sprint.

Pai also just floats right over the other major elephant in the room: the looming merger between Sprint and T-Mobile, which is expected to be formally unveiled in a few weeks. Every analyst in telecom worth their salt expects Pai to rubber stamp the deal, despite the obvious, major competitive impact of reducing the number of major carriers in the space from four to three. Pai's fellow Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who voted down the cocksure declaration of industry health, was quick to highlight this problem in her own statement (pdf) on the decision:

"Like everyone else, I read reports of mergers waiting in the wings. So while this report celebrates the presence of four nationwide wireless providers, let’s be mindful that a transaction may soon be announced that seeks to combine two of these four. While the Commission should not prejudge what is not yet before us, I think this agency sticks its collective head in the sand by issuing this report and implying move along, there is nothing to see here."

Oddly, news outlets like Reuters were quick to somehow insist that declaring the industry perfectly competitive (when under the surface it still really isn't) will somehow "help Sprint and T-Mobile to merge":

"A divided Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday approved a report that found for the first time since 2009 there is “effective competition” in the wireless market, a finding that could help Sprint Corp and T-Mobile US Inc to merge."

But on what planet does a partisan, arbitrary declaration of industry health make it OK to dramatically reduce sector competition further? That's the kind of flimsy logic and mindless megamerger cheer leading you're going to see a lot of the next few months as the industry -- and the policy folk and politicians paid to love them -- tries to convince the public that reducing wireless competition even further in the States is a really wonderful idea.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>ignore-a-problem-and-it-goes-away,-right?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20170927/09094438296Tue, 26 Sep 2017 06:23:56 PDTPrepare For An Epic Bullshit Sales Pitch For The Competition-Killing Sprint, T-Mobile MergerKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170922/11542938271/prepare-epic-bullshit-sales-pitch-competition-killing-sprint-t-mobile-merger.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170922/11542938271/prepare-epic-bullshit-sales-pitch-competition-killing-sprint-t-mobile-merger.shtml
For much of this year, Sprint and its Japanese owner Softbank have been buttering up the Trump administration in the hopes it will sign off on a merger between Sprint and T-Mobile. Sprint tried the same merger back in 2014, but found the attempt wisely blocked by regulators because it would have killed one of just four major wireless competitors in the space. Said buttering up has involved letting Trump falsely claim responsibility for murky Softbank job creation claims that were originally planned years ago, have nothing to do with the merger, and even less to do with Donald Trump.

Obviously the wireless market is enjoying a bit of a resurgence lately courtesy of T-Mobile, which has been giving bigger competitors fits by simply listening to what consumers want (fewer hidden bullshit fees, no contracts, cheaper international roaming) and providing it. In turn, wireless consumers have seen some notable improvements in the last year or two, including AT&T and Verizon being forced to bring back unlimited data plans they had previously tried to claim consumers didn't want. It's a resurgence that wouldn't have happened if regulators hadn't blocked AT&T's own attempted takeover over T-Mobile back in 2011 (something telecom giants and the "who needs government oversight?" sect would have you forget).

Yet here we are once again. With the Trump administration now acting as little more than a rubber stamp for telecom sector incumbents (see the killing of privacy protections, net neutrality rules, attempts to bring competition to the cable box, efforts to bring broadband to the poor, etc.) most analysts believe the Trump DOJ and FCC will happily approve this deal, the obvious competitive repercussions be damned. To help make sure, Sprint this month hired a lobbyist connected to Trump in the hopes of further greasing the skids for deal approval.

As a result, the proposed superunion between Sprint and T-Mobile appears to be quickly gaining steam, with a deal to be formally announced sometime in October:

"The transaction would significantly consolidate the U.S. telecommunications market and represent the first transformative U.S. merger with significant antitrust risk to be agreed since the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump in January. The progress toward a deal also indicates that T-Mobile and Sprint believe that the U.S. antitrust enforcement environment has become more favorable since the companies abandoned their previous effort to combine in 2014 amid regulatory concerns.

With the deal set to make headlines, you can expect an absolute torrent of pay-to-play editorials to start popping up in newspapers and websites nationwide, all of them trying to insist this deal will be of indisputable benefit to consumers. A wide variety of groups take telecom cash to repeat whatever they're told, whether it's rural Texas school associations, the U.S. Cattlemen's Association or co-opted minority groups, and you can be damn sure the dollar-per-hollar voices paid to support shitty policy will be out in force making a littany of false claims about the supposed perks of this latest, attempted union.

But as John Oliver just got done exploring, history isn't murky on this particular point: the elimination of a major competitor by merger undermines competition in a sector that's already well-known for a lack of it. Removing one of four competitors in the space will drive up prices, and could result in the elimination of unlimited data plans that only just re-appeared on the market. Apparently, this isn't a historical reality many T-Mobile customers are particularly tuned into, if this informal poll is any indication:

T-Mobile customers: Are you okay with @TMobile merging with @Sprint if @JohnLegere stays CEO, and T-Mobile absorbs the Sprint brand?

Many of these looming pay-to-play editorials selling this turd of a deal will try to argue that Sprint needs the deal to remain viable, but under SoftBank Sprint has notably improved its balance sheet and network, and there's a litany of possible suitors that could help Sprint manage its debt load (Comcast, Charter, Dish) that don't involve killing one of four major wireless competitors. Others will try to claim immeasurable job creation from the merger, when history repeatedly indicates that these kinds of mergers are indisputable job killers -- thanks to the elimination of countless redundancies at the acquired company.

The real challenge in selling this merger will fall in the lap of John Legere, the admittedly amusing T-Mobile CEO that has built a reputation for saying fuck a lot on Twitter and for being a consumer ally (even if this dedication has proven skin deep on subjects like net neutrality and the EFF). Leaks suggest Legere will stay on at the freshly-merged company, but may face headwinds in convincing some of the more alert T-Mobile customers that dramatically reducing market competition will somehow, magically, be immeasurably good for them.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>merge ALL the things!https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20170922/11542938271Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:30:00 PDTVerizon Hangs Up On Tens Of Thousands Of 'Unlimited' Wireless Customers For Using Too Much DataKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170915/11364838216/verizon-hangs-up-tens-thousands-unlimited-wireless-customers-using-too-much-data.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170915/11364838216/verizon-hangs-up-tens-thousands-unlimited-wireless-customers-using-too-much-data.shtml
Over the last few years, you may have noticed that Verizon is attempting a pivot from stodgy old telco to sexy new advertising juggernaut. Part of that effort has involved refusing to upgrade its lagging DSL infrastructure in countless towns and cities as it shifts its focus toward wireless and using its AOL and Yahoo acquisitions to sling videos and advertisements at Millennials. To justify its failure to upgrade its fixed-line network during this period (something it's being sued for by cities like New York), Verizon has long proclaimed that wireless is a "good enough" replacement for fixed-line alternatives.

But the company is now inadvertently highlighting just how not-ready for prime time wireless connections truly are. Verizon has been taking heat over the last few weeks for kicking thousands of customers off of its wireless network in more rural areas. Why? The company insists these customers (at last count 8,500 customers utilizing 19,000 lines across 13 states) are being kicked off the Verizon wireless network for using a "substantial" amount of data. But Verizon is refusing to tell these users what "substantial" actually means, after marketing "unlimited" data plans to these users for much of the year:

Verizon said in June that it was only disconnecting "a small group of customers" who were "using vast amounts of data—some as much as a terabyte or more a month—outside of our network footprint." But one customer, who contacted Ars this week about being disconnected, said her family never used more than 50GB of data across four lines despite having an "unlimited" data plan.

"Now we are left with very few choices, none of them with good service," the customer told us. "I guess small-town America means nothing to these people. It's OK—though I live in a small town, I know a lot of people, and I'm telling every one of them to steer clear of Verizon."

The problems here are multi-faceted. Three years ago, Verizon Wireless launched something called its LTE in rural America program (LTEiRA). Under this program, Verizon partnered with rural carriers to help extend the reach of their networks by letting them lease access to Verizon’s 700MHz Upper C Block spectrum. Several of the companies that worked with Verizon on this program state the company hyped the program, hired companies to help extend the reach of rural networks, then began marketing unlimited data plans to customers in many of these rural areas.

“It appears that Verizon induced these companies to build out in the rural areas around the country and then significantly promoted it by saying that they’re covering the rural areas, when it fact now, after putting those ads out, they’re now not covering the rural areas — in fact, they’re cutting it back,” he says.

And without much advance notice.

“This move caught them completely by surprise and totally blindsided them as it did the customers in the region,” says Jason Sulham, speaking for Wireless Partners LLC."

Again, Verizon isn't bothering to inform these users what "substantial" usage even means, part and parcel of a sector that has long advertised wireless connections as "unlimited," then saddled users with all manner of murky restrictions (part of the reason we have net neutrality rules). Some of the impacted users are telling news outlets they used as little as three gigabytes per month, so there's every indication that Verizon Wireless isn't being honest here as it tries to portray many of these folks as unreasonable data gluttons (which is traditionally par for the course).

"Law enforcement agencies in eastern Maine are criticizing a decision by Verizon Wireless to terminate cell service due to excessive cost. Police say the company’s decision will have an adverse effect on their work, and on the ability of residents to call 911.

Verizon officials remained tight-lipped Wednesday regarding the actual number of dropped customers, which some sources say could be as high as 2,000."

Again, there's nothing particularly revelatory about the fact that delivering wireless broadband to rural markets is expensive. Wireless spectrum is costly (often impossible for smaller companies), as is access to the fiber backhaul needed to feed wireless towers. But Verizon has spent the last decade insisting that freezing its deployment of FiOS fiber connections wasn't a big deal because wireless would be "good enough" for the millions of subscribers left in a lurch. In fact, Verizon found itself repeatedly under fire after Hurricane Sandy for refusing to repair fixed line networks for just that reason.

Verizon's decision to purge thousands of users off of the network for murky reasons comes as the FCC is looking -- largely at Verizon and AT&T's behest -- to weaken the standard definition of broadband to include wireless. The goal: redefine broadband to declare an area competitive and served if wireless is present, justifying institutional apathy toward doing anything about the lack of competition in the space. Granted this effort ignores instances exactly like this one clearly demonstrating that -- even with 5G on the horizon -- wireless is not a magical broadband panacea for under-served areas.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>invisible-barriershttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20170915/11364838216Fri, 16 Jun 2017 06:32:00 PDTWall Street Still Annoyed That Competition Forced Wireless Carriers To Bring Back Unlimited Data PlansKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170614/07270337586/wall-street-still-annoyed-that-competition-forced-wireless-carriers-to-bring-back-unlimited-data-plans.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170614/07270337586/wall-street-still-annoyed-that-competition-forced-wireless-carriers-to-bring-back-unlimited-data-plans.shtml
T-Mobile's loopy idea to try and treat wireless subscribers better (well, if you exclude their attacks on the EFF and net neutrality) has been a great thing for American consumers and wireless sector competition. Thanks to more consumer-friendly policies, T-Mobile has been adding more subscribers per quarter than any other major carrier for several years running. This added competitive pressure recently resulted in both AT&T and Verizon being forced to bring back the unlimited data plans the companies had been insisting for years consumers didn't actually want.

The problem, if you're a wireless carrier or investor, is that AT&T and Verizon are making slightly less money now that they're unable to sock consumers with restrictive caps and overage fees. In fact, wireless sector revenues dipped slightly in the first quarter for the first time in seventeen years, as T-Mobile competition forced carriers to engage in a little more than theatrical non-price competition. Keep in mind these companies are still making some fairly-incredible profits, and their expansion into areas like smart cities and the IOT give them ample opportunity for new revenue streams.

But unlimited data plans returned at the start of the year, and Wall Street firms still can't quite let go of the fact that these industry giants might just have to make a little less money. Cowen and Company Equity Research analyst Colby Synesael simply isn't very happy about this whole competition thing:

"The first quarter of unlimited for all four carriers left much to be desired. Both AT&T and Verizon incurred postpaid losses for the first time on record, a trend that could continue. Verizon specifically had its worst quarter in recent memory with a lackluster performance on nearly all sub metrics. Even T-Mobile’s guidance included a ‘less great’ postpaid net add increase of just +250,000. Combined with continued pricing pressure, AT&T and Verizon are pivoting to new avenues of growth such as Mexico, content, media, IoT and 5G, all of which can’t come soon enough."

Mike McCormack of Jefferies shares similar worries about how the elimination of often-arbitrary usage caps and overage fees means precious wireless industry giants now have to more seriously compete:

"The resurgence of unlimited plans is likely to delay more meaningful ARPU stabilization for multiple quarters due to the loss of overages and plan rightsizing. Impacts to ARPU on an incremental basis (i.e. for new subscribers) will depend on the number of accompanying lines activated. Our analysis suggests a willingness to use price with the hopes that multiline subscribers will churn less frequently. The move to unlimited also diminishes the ability to monetize growing data usage, removing an important lever of growth."

Poor darlings, having to actually compete on price and listen to consumers!

But worry not. Wall Street and these wireless companies have an ingenious solution to the sudden influx of T-Mobile competition: reduce competition through additional sector mergers and acquisitions. Wall Street analysts have been relentlessly fanning the flames of a Sprint acquisition of T-Mobile, which would eliminate one of four major competitors in the space. Sprint owner Softbank has been buttering up the Trump administration for much of the year in the hopes he'll approve a deal that was blocked by regulators in 2014 because it would have reduced competition.

Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure spent this week insisting such a union would create "enormous" synergies, and the fusion of the two companies would let the merged company battle more effectively with the likes of AT&T and Verizon Wireless. Granted if you've spent five minutes with a history textbook (especially one governing the telecom sector), you'll find that these megamergers almost always kill jobs, reduce overall competition, and reduce incentive for consumer service and network improvements. Meaning that if this merger is approved, bringing back unpopular usage caps and overage fees will be a top priority.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>I-hate-competitionhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20170614/07270337586Mon, 22 May 2017 06:27:00 PDTWireless Data Revenues Dip For First Time in Seventeen Years -- Thanks To A Crazy Little Thing Called CompetitionKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170517/10271837393/wireless-data-revenues-dip-first-time-seventeen-years-thanks-to-crazy-little-thing-called-competition.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170517/10271837393/wireless-data-revenues-dip-first-time-seventeen-years-thanks-to-crazy-little-thing-called-competition.shtml
We've noted for some time how T-Mobile's crazy idea to be nice to consumers (well, if you exclude their attacks on the EFF and net neutrality) has been a great thing for American consumers. Thanks to more consumer-friendly policies, T-Mobile has been adding more subscribers per quarter than any other major carrier for several years running. This pressure recently resulted in both AT&T and Verizon being forced to bring back the unlimited data plans the companies had been telling consumers they didn't actually want for years.

This added competition has really annoyed Wall Street, which has been grumbling about the shift back to unlimited plans for months. Wall Street had grown comfortable with the non-price competition in the wireless market, where plan pricing often obscured the fact that Americans pay more for mobile data than most developed countries. AT&T and Verizon used a lack of competitive pressure to kill off unlimited data plans in 2011, allowing them to introduce significantly more expensive metered plans -- just as video consumption on mobile began to take off. For the giant incumbents, things were going swimmingly.

Of course as T-Mobile grew, improved its network, and fashioned its often brash and amusing new identity, it slowly but surely became a more viable competitor, forcing both companies to respond. And, just as Wall Street worried, the shift back to unlimited data is having a negative impact on cellular revenues. How negative? According to respected wireless industry analyst Chetan Sharma, cellular data revenues dropped last quarter for the first time in seventeen years. This was part of a number of firsts for an industry not-entirely-familiar with this whole competition thing:

US had a rough start to 2017 with several indicators turning negative for the industry:

The US mobile data services revenue has seen QoQ growth for 17 straight years until Q1 2017 when it saw its first negative growth for the quarter. (Q1 is generally a down quarter but for the first time the revenue growth dipped below zero).

Verizon suffered its first ever decline in service revenues YoY.

For the first time, the net adds for connected (cellular) tablets were negative.

For the first time, the postpaid net-adds were negative (AT&T net-adds were impacted due to sun setting of the 2G network).

And while T-Mobile added 798,000 postpaid (month to month) subscribers, Verizon and AT&T saw a 289,000 and 348,000 postpaid subscriber reduction, respectively. Before you feel too badly for these industry giants, know that very healthy sector net income still managed to improve 13% overall as operators focused their attentions on other profitable markets (like the internet of things, ads and media, and smart cities), tightened their belts and lowered some expenditures.

Still, there's little doubt this added competition has been of notable benefit to consumers, who still pay some of the highest prices on the planet, but are at least getting to touch the hem of what real competition is supposed to look like.

The problem: there's no indication things will stay that way, and some indicators that things could reverse course. The FCC is busy gutting all consumer protections in belief that blind deregulation magically results in telecom utopia, ignoring that this has the opposite intended impact on less competitive markets (especially fixed-line broadband). And there's also every indication that these same regulators are keen to approve Sprint's planned acquisition of T-Mobile, a deal that would reduce the number of players in the space, likely putting an end to this pesky flirtation with competition in fairly short order.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>you mean I don't get to choose when I get to compete?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20170517/10271837393Thu, 27 Apr 2017 06:23:31 PDTAT&T Unveils A Fake 5G Network In The Hopes You'll Ignore T-Mobile Is Kicking Its AssKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170426/05094537241/att-unveils-fake-5g-network-hopes-youll-ignore-t-mobile-is-kicking-ass.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170426/05094537241/att-unveils-fake-5g-network-hopes-youll-ignore-t-mobile-is-kicking-ass.shtml
To be clear: fifth generation (5G) wireless should be really impressive when it actually arrives, providing significantly faster mobile broadband speeds at lower latencies. The catch: the 5G standard hasn't even been created yet, and any real deployment of the ultra-fast technology isn't expected to even seriously begin until 2020. That hasn't stopped wireless carrier and hardware vendor marketing departments, which have been hyping the technology as the second coming for several years now. Sure, these salesmen don't know what 5G really even is yet, but they're pretty sure it's going to fix everything.

As these carriers rush to begin tests on the hardware and software advancements that may someday make up the 5G standard, the real yeoman's work is now being done in marketing. All of the big carriers are tripping over themselves, trying desperately to convince the public that they're going to be the first to offer the amazing new benefits 5G can provide. Verizon has traditionally been at the forefront of this hype, telling anyone who'll listen it hopes to offer gigabit speeds over wireless sometime this year (to a limited number of trial participants).

Not to be outdone, AT&T has upped the ante this week with a proclamation that the company is first to market with "5G Evolution." What is 5G evolution? It's a largely meaningless marketing term concocted by AT&T to describe 4x4 MIMO (multiple input, multiple output) antennas and 256 QAM technologies that can be used to make existing LTE networks faster. It really has nothing whatsoever to do with "5G," but you wouldn't know that from reading AT&T's marketing missives this week:

"AT&T* today announced 5G Evolution plans to pave the way to the next generation of faster speeds for its wireless customers with the latest devices in over 20 major metro areas by the end of this year. We continue to lay the foundation for our evolution to 5G while the 5G standards are being finalized."

"Our 5G Evolution in Austin gives our customers a taste of the future," said David Christopher, chief marketing officer, AT&T Entertainment Group. "With 5G Evolution from AT&T you don’t have to wait to experience endless entertainment possibilities on the next generation network when you have the latest devices."

Except you will wait. For some time. A closer look reveals that the trials are only currently available in a limited part of Austin, and only accessible from those that have one of two mobile devices: the Samsung Galaxy S8 or S8+. And while 4x4 MIMO and 256 QAM advancements are a useful improvement for existing networks, they're not really new, either. T-Mobile has been implementing the upgrades on its own network since last fall.

The features AT&T is calling "5G Evolution" have been live on T-Mobile since 2016. It's not even like this stuff is that new.

And again, this has absolutely nothing to do with "5G." So why are carriers like AT&T and Verizon pushing so hard to hype a technology that doesn't technically exist? For years both carriers justified their higher prices by claiming their networks offered users superior connectivity. But as T-Mobile has ramped up competition, gobbled up their frustrated customers and closed the network coverage and performance gap -- these companies have been forced to find some other way to justify what are fairly consistently some of the highest LTE broadband prices among all developed nations. Their solution for this justification gap? Good, old-fashioned hype.

With "4G" networks, we watched as carrier marketing departments slowly but surely convinced the ITU to let them call pretty much everything short of carrier pigeons 4G. Not to be outdone, you can expect the marketing bastardization of the term "5G" to be dramatically more misleading and annoying.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>5G-is-whatever-I-say-it-ishttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20170426/05094537241Wed, 7 Dec 2016 06:34:32 PSTT-Mobile Applauds Likely Death Of Net Neutrality Under TrumpKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161206/05394636203/t-mobile-applauds-likely-death-net-neutrality-under-trump.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161206/05394636203/t-mobile-applauds-likely-death-net-neutrality-under-trump.shtmlsense of humor), the consumer-friendly brand they've established has consistently fallen short when it comes to one major subject: net neutrality. The company lobbied and fought consistently against the reclassification of ISPs as common carriers and the creation of net neutrality rules. The operator then pissed off much of the internet when CEO John Legere mocked the EFF for raising questions about the misleading nature of the company's zero rating and throttling practices.

This week, the company again made its opposition to net neutrality clear. Speaking at a media and telecom conference, T-Mobile CFO Braxton Carter applauded the incoming President-elect Donald Trump, whose telecom transition team members have all made it abundantly clear that eliminating net neutrality rules and gutting the FCC as a consumer watchdog will be among their top priorities. This is, T-Mobile claims, going to be a real "positive" for the industry:

"It’s hard to imagine, with the way the election turned out, that we’re not going to have an environment, from several aspects, that is not going to be more positive for my industry,” Carter said in comments this morning at the 44th Annual Global Media and Communications Conference. “I think that it’s very clear that there’s going to be less regulation. And less regulation—regulation often destroys innovation and value creation."

"Carter also specifically addressed the issue of net neutrality, arguing that the reversal of the FCC’s Open Internet rules would pave the way for additional innovation in the space. “It would provide the opportunity for significant innovation and differentiation,” Carter said of a telecom industry without net neutrality rules. “You could do some very interesting things” without net neutrality."

Carter appears excited about "deregulation" because it might lower T-Mobile's tax burden and increase its chances of merging or being acquired. But his excitement is shortsighted and fairly typical for executives in the telecom sector.

The problem is that in telecom, "deregulation" (of the sort promised by folks like Trump advisor Jeff Eisenach) doesn't actually mean straight deregulation. What it means in practice is pay-to-play regulation, where the biggest and most politically powerful companies (usually AT&T or Comcast) get to literally write the law. That's why you'll often see these folks breathlessly proclaim they adore "open markets," yet turn a blind eye when AT&T or Comcast write protectionist state law that hamstrings local communities and keeps competitors at bay.

In telecom, "deregulation" is all-too-frequently code for "let's let AT&T and Comcast decide what's best." That was the preferred mantra of former FCC boss Michael Powell (now the cable industry's top lobbyist), who also shared Jeffrey Eisenach as a transition team member. The end result of that administration was "deregulation" that wound up empowering AT&T and Comcast, making broadband less competitive and customer service worse than ever. We've apparently decided to collectively forget that.

As such, when your biggest competitor is AT&T, cheering for the one regulator that has tried to ensure a level playing field for smaller competitors seems a bit myopic. Remember it was the FCC and DOJ that blocked AT&T's attempted acquisition of T-Mobile, which ultimately resulted in T-Mobile being a more innovative, fierce competitor than ever before. Again, every indication coming from Trump's telecom transition team and the GOP is that they hope to completely defund and defang the FCC. That means more mergers, less competition, less innovation, and more net neutrality violations than ever before.

T-Mobile has repeatedly tried to downplay its opposition to net neutrality by claiming that the company is on the "right side of history" as it fights neutrality rules with broad, bipartisan support among consumers. But the company's enthusiastic support for the gutting of nearly all consumer protections in the broadband space make it clear, once again, the brand's dedication to consumers and "innovation" is entirely and unsurprisingly superficial.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>with-friends-like-thesehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20161206/05394636203Mon, 31 Oct 2016 09:39:56 PDTAT&T's Already Making Things Up To Get Its Massive New Merger ApprovedKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161031/07340735922/ats-already-making-things-up-to-get-massive-new-merger-approved.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161031/07340735922/ats-already-making-things-up-to-get-massive-new-merger-approved.shtmllying to sell the public, press and regulators on the company's neverending attempts to grow larger. Whether it's promising broadband expansions that never arrive, or using astroturf to try and argue anti-consumer mergers are good for toddlers, AT&T's lobbyists, lawyers, and policy tendrils work tirelessly to argue that up is down, black is white, and any skepticism of its claims are unfounded hysteria. As we saw with the blocked T-Mobile merger, this sort of behavior doesn't work quite as well as it used to.

Enter AT&T's latest $85 billion planned acquisition of Time Warner. Consumer advocates worry AT&T could use its size and leverage to make content more expensive, while the usage caps and zero rating give AT&T's own upcoming streaming video service an unfair market advantage. Wall Street hasn't exactly been bullish on the idea either, noting how AT&T's $69 billion acquisition of DirecTV, followed by its $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner is not only a giant risk on the eve of the cord cutting revolution, but it saddles AT&T with an absolute mountain of debt that will potentially damage the company's credit rating.

"Stephenson this week tried to claim that the $85 billion acquisition of a broadcaster will somehow speed up the company's deployment of fifth generation (5G) wireless broadband.
"We would probably have a desire to move faster on 5G, certainly not slower," Stephenson claimed on the company's earnings call this week. AT&T CFO John Stevens agreed, claiming that the massive deal "brings us a lot more financial flexibility... or revenue enhancements and growth that will allow us to fund 5G."

Except that 5G is an evolutionary step up for wireless, one AT&T was unquestioningly-dedicated to before this merger was even announced. AT&T doesn't really have a choice in working toward 5G, which doesn't even have an official standard yet -- and likely won't see any meaningful commercial deployment until 2020. As for "financial flexibility," buying a massive media empire, saddling yourself with debt, having your credit downgraded and potentially hamstringing your ability to participate in current spectrum auctions -- doesn't magically make your wireless network appear more quickly.

AT&T also appears to be trying to convince the press, public and regulators that the deal is somehow making it possible for AT&T to launch its new "DirecTV Now" streaming service, which is expected to launch this Friday. AT&T executives have been claiming repeatedly that the service's $35 per month price point is somehow thanks to a merger that technically doesn't even exist yet:

"AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson today defended his company's proposed acquisition of Time Warner, saying that critics who claim the merger will raise prices are "uninformed." As proof, he said the AT&T-owned DirecTV will soon launch a $35-per-month streaming service called DirecTV Now.

"I'm not surprised [by the criticism]. They're uninformed comments," Stephenson said in response to a question from Wall Street Journal editor Rebecca Blumenstein at the newspaper's WSJDLive Conference. "Anybody who characterizes this as a means to raise prices is ignoring the basic premise of what we're trying to do here, again a $35 product we bring into the market."

Right, except this new streaming service was actually first announced eight months ago. And the licensing contracts supporting this $35 price point (which you know won't be anywhere near $35 once AT&T saddles it with fees and caveats) were already in place long before the merger was even announced. While AT&T is surely going to get better rates for content now that it owns the cow, there's absolutely no historical evidence to suggest that savings will be passed on directly to the consumer. If anything, consumers could pay more as AT&T uses its broadband mono/duopoly power to try and hamstring streaming alternatives.

This is just AT&T getting warmed up. Over the next few months, media outlets will be hammered with op-eds from lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, policy wonks, "consultants" and think tankers (all with undisclosed financial ties to AT&T) happily claiming that this new merger will cure cancer, protect toddlers, and keep the nation's puppies warm and happy. And while it's understandable that ISPs want to get into content and ads as broadband growth slows, the $150 billion spent on DirecTV and Time Warner could have brought fiber optic connections to American homes several times over.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>witness-the-firepower-of-this-fully-armed-and-operational-battle-stationhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20161031/07340735922Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:43:45 PDTGoogle Fiber Announces Layoffs & Deployment Pause, Will Likely Pivot To WirelessKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161026/07064035890/google-fiber-announces-layoffs-deployment-pause-will-likely-pivot-to-wireless.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161026/07064035890/google-fiber-announces-layoffs-deployment-pause-will-likely-pivot-to-wireless.shtmlreport emerged claiming that Google Fiber executives were having some second thoughts about this whole "building a nationwide fiber network from the ground up" thing. More specifically, the report suggested that some executives were disappointed with the slow pace of digging fiber trenches, and were becoming bullish on the idea of using next-gen wireless to supplement fiber after acquiring fixed wireless provider Webpass. As such, the report said the company was pondering some staff reductions, some executive changes, and a bit of a pivot.

Fast forward to this week when Access CEO Craig Barrett posted a cheery but ambiguous blog post not only formally announcing most of these changes, but his own resignation as CEO. According to Barrett, Google will continue to serve and expand Google Fiber's existing markets (Austin, Atlanta, Charlotte, Kansas City, Nashville, Provo, Salt Lake City, and The Triangle in North Carolina), and will also build out previously-announced but not yet started efforts in Huntsville, Alabama; San Antonio, Texas; Louisville, Kentucky; and Irvine, California.

From there, the direction Google Fiber will be headed gets murky. According to Barrett, Google has paused (read: killed) potential deployments in cities where Google Fiber had been having conversations, but hadn't yet given the green light for full deployment (Portland, Chicago, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, San Diego, San Jose, and Tampa). Most of the layoffs will be in these cities, notes Barrett:

"For most of our “potential Fiber cities” — those where we’ve been in exploratory discussions — we’re going to pause our operations and offices while we refine our approaches. We’re ever grateful to these cities for their ongoing partnership and patience, and we’re confident we’ll have an opportunity to resume our partnership discussions once we’ve advanced our technologies and solutions. In this handful of cities that are still in an exploratory stage, and in certain related areas of our supporting operations, we’ll be reducing our employee base."

A report over at Bloomberg notes that about 9% of employees at Access (which covers multiple projects, not just Google Fiber) will be let go, which is notably fewer staff reductions than last summer's report had suggested. Bloomberg's insiders also claim that there have been some rifts among executives at Google/Alphabet/Access over whether to remain dedicated to the laborious process of fiber installations, or to pivot more completely to wireless:

"Moving into big cities was a contentious point inside Google Fiber, according to one former executive. Leaders like Barratt and Dennis Kish, who runs Google Fiber day-to-day, pushed for the big expansion. Others pushed back because of the prohibitive cost of digging up streets to lay fiber-optic cables across some of America’s busiest cities."

That there's some hesitation isn't surprising. Not only is building a fiber network from the ground up incredibly hard, expensive, and time consuming, the telecom industry is awash with deep pocketed incumbents intent on making things as difficult as possible for competitors like Google Fiber (and downright impossible for smaller ISPs). From AT&T suing cities to thwart attempts to streamline utility pole attachments, to incumbent ISPs writing awful state law prohibiting public/private partnerships, telecom can certainly be a cesspool of protectionism of the worst sort.

While these incumbent ISPs (and their armies of paid policy mouthpieces) will likely spend the next few weeks celebrating the "death of Google Fiber," there's nothing stopping the company from pivoting to next-generation wireless. Google has filed applications with the FCC to conduct trials in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz millimeter wave bands, and is also conducting a variety of different tests in the 3.5 GHz band, the 5.8 GHz band and the 24 GHz band. That said, it certainly remains possible that at some point Google gets tired of ramming its head against VerizoCasT&T and sells the project off in a few years, leaving us with another sad historical footnote in the often pitiful national quest for something vaguely resembling broadband competition.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>build-it-and-they-won't-comehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20161026/07064035890Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:23:49 PDTVerizon Punishes Techs That Try To Repair DSL Customers It No Longer WantsKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161005/08355035711/verizon-punishes-techs-that-try-to-repair-dsl-customers-it-no-longer-wants.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161005/08355035711/verizon-punishes-techs-that-try-to-repair-dsl-customers-it-no-longer-wants.shtmlbillions in tax breaks and subsidies in exchange for fiber optic upgrades the telco either partially or never actually deploys. Now, for the last half decade or so, the telco has been trying to hang up on these unwanted, un-upgraded DSL customers entirely as it shifts its focus to more profitable (read: usage capped) wireless service. Well, that and buying up old and uninteresting 90s internet brands in a quest to become the next media and advertising juggernaut (note: it's not going all that well).

While it's understandable that Verizon executives want to migrate to higher-growth sectors, there's a few problems. Most of these networks were built on the backs of taxpayers, and the "burdensome regulations" governing them exist in many instances to ensure nobody can unceremoniously disconnect phone service from the elderly. And Verizon has been far from ethical as it tries to back away from networks that should have been upgraded years ago, even going so far as to refuse to repair them after natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy.

Pennsylvania is one of several states where Verizon nabbed billions in subsidies, didn't do all that much with it, and now wants to just walk away from frustrated broadband customers. As the state continues scattered, largely toothless investigations into Verizon's behavior on this front, the Communications Workers of America recently issued a filing with the state PUC detailing how Verizon hamstrings its own employees from giving customers better (or any) service:

"We are seeing increasing numbers of dissatisfied customers whose service goes out when it rains or who simply have no dial tone at all,” Gardler wrote. “We know the reasons why—the cable is bad and needs to be replaced; air pressure systems are not working property; and backup batteries are not replaced when they wear out. But we are powerless to make the changes that would provide good service to customers because Verizon is not willing to spend the money, or hire the people needed, to repair the service. Instead, we're told to install VoiceLink for voice-only customers and allow the copper network to deteriorate even further."

As noted above, Verizon's "solution" for axing these DSL lines is "Voice Link" a wireless-based service that only provides voice (no data) and doesn't work with the lion's share of security systems, fax machines, or many pacemakers that require landline monitoring or updates. It was the solution du jour pushed by Verizon in the aftermath of Sandy, triggering massive public backlash from users that found this "upgrade" to be a downgrade.

Obviously the unions have a vested interest in Verizon not migrating to less-unionized wireless, but the CWA also notes that Verizon employees now face termination if they actually try to do their jobs:

"Field technicians are required to have VoiceLink units on their trucks and to refuse to repair copper plant serving voice-only customers. Our members are being told that if they actually try to repair copper plant instead of using VoiceLink, they will be subject to disciplinary action by Verizon."

Again, that's a telco actively punishing technicians for trying to make customers happy, since it runs contrary to Verizon's mission of trying to drive these DSL customers away via the one-two punch of repair apathy and constant price hikes. Again though, none of this would really be a problem if Verizon had actually used taxpayer subsidies to upgrade to the more resilient fiber networks it originally promised and we all collectively paid for (over and over and over again).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>taxpayer-subsidized-apathyhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20161005/08355035711Tue, 27 Sep 2016 06:22:39 PDTVerizon Claims Nobody Wants Unlimited Data, Wouldn't Be Profitable AnywayKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160923/06431535600/verizon-claims-nobody-wants-unlimited-data-wouldnt-be-profitable-anyway.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160923/06431535600/verizon-claims-nobody-wants-unlimited-data-wouldnt-be-profitable-anyway.shtmlharassing or otherwise annoying these customers until they convert to costlier shared plans. And despite the fact that such overage-fee-based plans confuse the living hell out of most customers (who have no idea what a gigabyte is), both companies continue to insist that customers don't actually want unlimited data.

Speaking at an investor conference last week, Verizon CFO Fram Shammo once again declared that Verizon knows what consumers want, and it isn't unlimited data:

"At the end of the day, people don't need unlimited plans," Verizon Chief Financial Officer Fran Shammo said at an investor conference Thursday."

And despite the fact that plenty of companies (like T-Mobile) have seen explosive growth of late selling unlimited data plans, Shammo proclaimed making money off of unlimited just isn't possible:

"T-Mobile and Sprint have introduced cheaper unlimited data plans -- in exchange for slowing the connection for lower-resolution video -- and AT&T has been trumpeting its own unlimited data bundle with DirecTV video service. The push to unlimited data marks a reversal of the last few years of rhetoric about the costs of delivering service. For Verizon, that remains the biggest argument against unlimited. "You cannot make money on an unlimited video world," he said

Of course what Shammo means is that Verizon won't see the same generous profit margins it's currently seeing if it were to actually give consumers what they want. Verizon saw $8.0 billion in profit on $21.7 billion in second-quarter revenues in large part thanks to shared data plans (though Verizon Wireless' earnings were perfectly healthy under unlimited data plans as well). Since most users don't know what a gigabyte even is, they tend to sign up for bigger plans than they actually need for fear of hitting the overage wall.

Those fears pay huge dividends for the mobile carrier, whose wireless plans are constructed like a giant funnel that constantly pushes users to more and more expensive levels of service once in the door.

Verizon for years has justified some of the highest rates in the industry as reflective of the overall quality of its wireless network. But as competitors like T-Mobile begin to catch up, Verizon's running out of marketing ideas to justify its service's higher price point. Enter last week, when Verizon responded to new unlimited data promotions from Sprint and T-Mobile with new ads proclaiming that the company doesn't sell unlimited data, it sells "limitless data." When asked how you can call a gigabyte-capped shared data plan limitless, Verizon PR trots out its very finest dancing shoes:

"Limitless refers to how you can use your data and unlimited refers to the amount of data,” said Kelly Crummey, director of corporate communications at Verizon...Our competitors claim they offer ‘unlimited plans’ but if you really look at them, they are full of limits on how you use your data with thinks (sic) like SD (not HD) and automatically slowing down your speeds. The way our plans are structured, you can use your data however you want – there are no limits.

Well, no limits except the very clear limits. Apparently, Verizon thinks that you compete by telling customers what they want while abusing the hell out of the dictionary. It should be interesting to see how that tactic plays out as T-Mobile continues to erode Verizon's wireless market share.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>not-the-droids-you're-looking-forhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20160923/06431535600Tue, 30 Aug 2016 06:23:00 PDTT-Mobile Declares It's On 'The Right Side Of History' As It Laughs At Net NeutralityKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160829/12210935385/t-mobile-declares-right-side-history-as-it-laughs-net-neutrality.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160829/12210935385/t-mobile-declares-right-side-history-as-it-laughs-net-neutrality.shtmlfought against real net neutrality rules, then, once passed anyway, got right to work trying to find creative ways around the rules using zero rating (exempting only some content from usage caps). When net neutrality advocates and scholars repeatedly pointed out T-Mobile was violating net neutrality and being a bit hypocritical ("we're edgy and love consumers but not real net neutrality!"), the company dug a deeper hole by attacking groups like the EFF.

Last week T-Mobile upped the ante with new plans that promise "unlimited" data, but are not only more expensive, they throttle tethering, throttle overall consumption at 26 GB, and throttle all video to 1.5 Mbps or 480p. Users who want HD video to actually work correctly can apparently pony up $25 more per month. Emboldened by T-Mobile and a (so far) apathetic FCC, Sprint revealed similar "unlimited" data plans of its own, which throttle all video, games and music to 1.5 Mbps, 2 Mbps, and 500 kbps respectively, unless you pony up another $25 per month.

Groups like the EFF were quick to point out that installing ISPs as middlemen who get to determine how well your services work based on how much you pay in a marginally-competitive broadband market sets a horrible precedent. If regulators allow T-Mobile to charge more money for HD video to work, what stops Comcast from charging you more if you want 4K Netflix streams to work? Or AT&T deciding it can charge you more if you want your Steam games to download at full bitrate? This is a door that, once opened, won't be easily closed. And once this practice is a standard, it will be abused.

T-Mobile, for whatever it's worth, continues to be annoyingly tone deaf about the slippery slope it's dragging the entire industry toward. However bad zero rating was, the act of throttling entire classes of traffic unless you pay your ISP more money is notably worse. Highlighting how video conferencing isn't throttled but YouTube is, The Verge tried to get T-Mobile to define "video" and "data" but came away stymied:

"I asked T-Mobile for the company’s definition of "data" and a spokesperson said "that’s not something I could give you," but suggested that the company was on "the right side of history," and that the goal was to make "unlimited sustainable for the mass market." That’s an admirable goal! But let’s not dance around the fundamentals of the situation. Net neutrality is the law of the land, and T-Mobile has aggressively pushed the boundaries of net neutrality by manipulating the traffic on its network."

But again, violating net neutrality principles isn't the same as violating net neutrality rules, and the FCC's rules were carved out with numerous exeptions that allow all manner of throttling -- provided ISPs claim it's for the health of the network. That's why T-Mobile frames this as a matter of "sustainability," even though it's really about adhering to basic dictionary definitions and not selling an "unlimited" service if you're not actually willing to offer it. For a company that markets itself as a pro-consumer alternative to traditional wireless carriers, T-Mobile seems increasingly hell bent on continuing some of the industry's worst habits.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>words no longer have any meaninghttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20160829/12210935385Fri, 26 Aug 2016 11:51:05 PDTHow Is This Not A Net Neutrality Violation, Sprint?Karl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160826/10020535353/how-is-this-not-net-neutrality-violation-sprint.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160826/10020535353/how-is-this-not-net-neutrality-violation-sprint.shtmlhot button topics) as to be more than a little problematic. More specifically, they contain so much wiggle room they let ISPs of all stripes violate net neutrality -- just so long as they're a bit more creative about it. Verizon and Comcast were quick to highlight this when they began cap-exempting their own content, while still penalizing their competitors (without so much as a real peep from the FCC).

T-Mobile pushed these creative barriers further with Binge On, which exempts only the biggest and most popular video services from the company's usage caps (aka "zero rating"). This automatically puts thousands of smaller video providers, non-profits, educational institutions and startups at a notable market disadvantage, but by and large nobody outside of the EFF and academia seems to give much of a damn because a: ill-informed consumers are happy laboring under the illusion that they're getting something for free and b: the public (and by proxy media) is lazy and tired of debating net neutrality.

But the door being opened here leads to a monumental, potentially dangerous shift not only in how broadband service is purchased and sold, but in just how open the internet of the future is going to be.

Last week T-Mobile moved the bar even further with its new T-Mobile One plan, which provides 'unlimited' data, voice and text messaging for $70 per month. Users generally don't like the plan because it's technically more expensive than T-Mobile's previous plans. But it's also saddled with caveats, such as the fact that tethering (using your phone as a modem or hotspot) is throttled to 128 kbps, 'unlimited' technically means 26 GB, and by default all user video is throttled to 480p or 1.5 Mbps by default. Unless users pay T-Mobile a $20 monthly surcharge for HD quality.

Emboldened by T-Mobile and an utterly comatose FCC, Sprint has taken this idea even further, last week unveiling its own not-really-unlimited "Unlimited Freedom" plan with its own set of annoying caveats. Tethering is forbidden, "unlimited" actually means about 23 GB before your full connection is throttled, and by default all video is throttled to 1.5 Mbps, all games are throttled to "up to 2mbps" and all music streams are throttled at "up to 500kbps." That's a god-damned generous definition of unlimited by any measure.

But rejoice, this week Sprint came up with a "solution" for customers who, you know, would like all the services they use to actually work. The company has announced a new "Unlimited Freedom Premium" plan that raises all these arguably arbitrary limits -- if you're willing to shell out an additional $25 per month:

"This plan provides a premium quality mobile streaming experience with HD streaming videos at up to 1080p+, HD music streaming at up to 1.5 Mbps and streaming gaming at up to 8 Mbps."

Again, so we're clear: this is an ISP forcing users to pay more money if they want the services they consume to actually work properly. That's the exact sort of thing net neutrality rules were supposed to prevent. Yet here we are, dancing on a slippery slope, staring down an incredibly fractured, confusing, and potentially exploitable new paradigm for the already uncompetitive broadband sector. And frankly, nobody seems to give all that much of a shit. Either because they're bored of paying attention, or they can't see a few plays ahead on the chess match between net neutrality advocates and large ISPs.

If Sprint and T-Mobile can charge users premium to avoid video, game and music throttling, what prevents Comcast from charging users a premium if they want 4K video streaming to actually work? What stops AT&T from charging users a premium if they want their Steam games to download at full speed? The answer? Nobody, apparently, since the FCC has made it abundantly clear it believes that usage caps, zero rating, and pay-to-avoid-throttling schemes are just creative market experimentation. Except the only creativity on display here involves marketers convincing consumers to root against their own best, self interest.

As noted above, net neutrality violations are still perfectly legal here in the States, you just need a little creative showmanship when shafting the consumer. The FCC's Open Internet Order (pdf) is chock-full of "rules" that don't apply if you provide a bullshit-laden technical justification about how you're only throttling "for the health and security of the network." But congestion has always been used by the telecom industry to justify all manner of bad behavior, including unnecessary usage caps on captive customers. And regulators and the press can rarely be bothered to fact check these congestion claims (remember the exaflood?).

And while spectrum constraints on wireless networks are certainly real, that's no justification for the sea change. If your network can't actually handle unlimited data? Either raise prices transparently to pay for the necessary upgrades, or stop marketing "unlimited" services. What we don't want is the telecom sector with a generation of documented anti-competitive behavior under its belt dictating just how well services perform based on how much users are willing to pay. Because make no mistake, without vibrant, organic market competition (which is only marginally better in wireless) they will abuse the concept like an insatiable swarm of termites.

Initially, I assume both T-Mobile and Sprint will try to argue that this isn't that big of a deal, because users can always switch to metered plans that don't involve charging you more money for un-throttled services. At least until those other plans quietly disappear over a period of months, and paying a premium to actually use content the way it was intended is all the consumer has to choose from. And given that the majority of the public has no idea what a gigabyte even is, these new caveats and the horrible precedent they set will fly (and are clearly flying) right over their collective heads.

I understand that net neutrality is a convoluted and hyperbole-heavy debate that has gone on for more than a decade. As such there's clearly plenty of people happy to labor under the illusion that last June's FCC net neutrality win was the end of the conversation and they can take a nap. It's not, and they can't. We'll be fighting for an open internet for as long as ISPs keep trying creative ways to abuse the lack of last-mile broadband competition. In other words, forever.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>so much for net neutralityhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20160826/10020535353Wed, 24 Aug 2016 06:29:12 PDTOne More Time With Feeling: Net Neutrality Didn't Hurt Broadband Investment In The SlightestKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160823/09034535313/one-more-time-with-feeling-net-neutrality-didnt-hurt-broadband-investment-slightest.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160823/09034535313/one-more-time-with-feeling-net-neutrality-didnt-hurt-broadband-investment-slightest.shtmlproudly proclaimed that net neutrality rules would "jeopardize our investment and the development of innovation in Broadband Internet and related services." ISP-tied think tanks released study after statistically-massaged study claiming that net neutrality (and the reclassification of ISPs as common carriers under Title II) would be utterly catastrophic for the broadband industry and its consumers alike.

But as time wore on it became abundantly clear that these warnings were the empty prattle of a broken industry, using a thick veneer of bunk science to defend its monopoly over the uncompetitive broadband last mile.

Since net neutrality was passed there has been absolutely no evidence that a single one of these claims had anything even remotely resembling merit, with broadband expansion pushing forward at full speed, constrained only by the ongoing lack of competition in many markets. We've watched as outfits like Google Fiber continue to expand its footprint. We've watched as Verizon suddenly promised to deploy fiber to cities long neglected. We've watched as Comcast and AT&T rushed to try and keep pace with gigabit investments of their own. In short, nothing changed, and things may have even improved.

"The FCC’s forward auction headed into Round 8 on Monday with a total of more than $11.5 billion in bids, according to the auction dashboard. The figure was up from just $8.5 billion in auction proceeds from the first round of bidding last week. Demand appeared to be holding strong...Forward auction bidders are striving to hit an $86.4 billion price target set by broadcasters in the reverse auction. If demand does not reach supply, then a second reverse auction will be held with a lower clearing target of 90 MHz, the FCC has said.

You'd think that carriers tripping over themselves to pursue fifth-gen (5G) wireless alone would be enough to put onerous claims about the negative impact of net neutrality rules to bed. But you'd be wrong. Revolving door regulators like Verizon lawyer turned FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai have consistently tried to claim that net neutrality somehow stifled investment, we just apparently didn't notice. Other sector chicken littles have turned to citing unrelated business downturns to try and obfuscate how full of crap the lion's share of these organizations and consultants were on the subject of net neutrality.

Except Cisco's global layoffs have nothing to do with some relatively simple net neutrality rules passed in the States. Cisco is downsizing because of the rise in virtualization and the company's shift from its hardware roots into a software-centric organization, something the company itself admits, and something you'd think an economist would understand. This conflation attempt isn't unique. Industry-tied think tanker Hal Singer has done yeoman's work the last year or two trying to claim networking investment is down despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.

Singer, whose study played the starring role in the industry's manufactured denial, continued to beat the same drum beat on Twitter last week:

"It is simply irresponsible for regulators to rely on gut feelings – or political pressure or public opinion polls. Rather they should be guided by empirical evidence, rigorous analysis of regulatory costs and benefits and basic economic principles taught on every college campus across the country together. What matters most is not the sheer number of docketed public comments or the enthusiasm of those blockading of the Chairman’s driveway, but instead a sober analysis of the need for regulation in light of proven market failures."

Again, that's an ISP-funded think tanker, freshly proven incredibly, repeatedly, and quite-possible intentionally wrong across numerous fronts, blasting the FCC for ignoring actual economic data. Gosh, it's almost as if these folks are paid to be as intellectually rigid as possible, utterly immune to any attempts at honest discourse when presented with conflicting evidence. Do you get to give people lectures on economics and integrity when your bunk studies are used repeatedly to smear net neutrality rules designed to aid consumers, startups and small businesses nationwide? Apparently.

In short, ISPs and their "dollar-a-holler" think tankers used crap science and economics to intentionally mislead the public on net neutrality, but their predictions have been proven repeatedly and painfully wrong. But instead of acknowledging error and moving on to the next misleading argument, they've decided to double down and promote a broadband investment cataclysm that never actually happened.

This week however things took an interesting turn with the news that Google Fiber was pausing deployments in Silicon Valley and Portland, Oregon, to take stock of possible wireless alternatives. Neither deployment was formally official (both cities were listed as "potential" targets); and Google Fiber execs are simply considering whether or not it makes financial sense to begin using some fifth generation (5G) technologies to supplement existing fiber deployment.

This isn't really surprising; Under the guidance of former Atheros CEO Craig Barratt, Google has filed applications with the FCC to conduct trials in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz millimeter wave bands, and is also conducting a variety of different tests in the 3.5 GHz band, the 5.8 GHz band and the 24 GHz band. The company also recently acquired Webpass in the hopes of supplementing fiber with ultra-fast wireless wherever possible. Wireless has been on Google's radar for several years. It's a great option in cities where construction logistics are a nightmare, or in towns where AT&T's using regulations to hinder fiber deployment.

Oddly though, as the week wore on, the narrative in the press began to mutate from one focusing on Google Fiber's evolution, to one suggesting that Google Fiber was somehow in trouble. Reports sprung up arguing that Google Fiber was somehow shocked by the steep costs of deploying broadband, ill-prepared for the realities of the telecom market (certainly a narrative incumbent ISP competitors would prefer). Certain stock jocks were quick to proclaim that Google Fiber was somehow backtracking on the initiative:

"Some analysts see the delays as indications that Google Fiber is more strategy than product -- an attempt to get competitors, cities and other service providers to install fiber networks that would foster faster and more widespread consumption of Google's online offerings. "It's not clear (Google was) ever all that serious about doing this at any real size," said MoffettNathanson Research analyst Craig Moffett.

While Google Fiber was initially seen as a creative way to light a PR fire under lazy broadband incumbents (and that certainly is part of the goal), ongoing construction in Charlotte, San Antonio, Austin, Kansas City, Raleigh, Nashville, Atlanta and countless other markets is continuing slowly but largely as normal, with Google Fiber simply getting more bullish on wireless as the technology evolves. That's not really a "snag," especially if you consider that Google Fiber has been making its interest in wireless as a supplemental technology clear for several years now.

"Google parent Alphabet Inc. is rethinking its high-speed internet business after initial rollouts proved more expensive and time consuming than anticipated, a stark contrast to the fanfare that greeted its launch six years ago."

Except Google Fiber isn't "rethinking" the entire business, nor has it hit a "snag." It's simply riding the evolutionary currents, realizing that it needs to embrace multiple concurrent solutions if it wants to get many of these cities up and running sometime this century. In addition to wireless, Google Fiber has embraced a number of other new efforts for the ISP, such as its plan to offer service over a planned municipal fiber build in Huntsville, Alabama, or its plan to begin offering service in Atlanta and San Francisco over existing fiber networks.

Building a nationwide network from the ground up in the face of regulatory capture is hard as hell, and only companies with Alphabet's deep pockets and lobbying muscle are even willing to try at any real scale. Incumbent ISPs certainly benefit from the narrative that the company is in well over its head, but at the moment Google Fiber's simply trying multiple concurrent solutions to see what works. And while it's certainly possible that Alphabet will someday get bored and sell the entire project off to the lowest bidder, at the moment the goal remains the same: deliver a swift kick in the ass to one of the least competitive markets in America.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>disruption-ain't-easyhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20160816/05532635253Tue, 12 Jul 2016 06:30:00 PDTEuropean Telcos Threaten To Withhold Next Gen Wireless Upgrades If Net Neutrality Rules PassedKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160711/08523034933/european-telcos-threaten-to-withhold-next-gen-wireless-upgrades-if-net-neutrality-rules-passed.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160711/08523034933/european-telcos-threaten-to-withhold-next-gen-wireless-upgrades-if-net-neutrality-rules-passed.shtmltried to feed the FCC in the States. But no matter how many industry-tried, cherry picking think tank studies have tried to claim that net neutrality hurts broadband investment, real world data and ongoing deployment show that just isn't true.

As we noted last October, Europe passed net neutrality rules that not only don't really protect net neutrality, but actually give ISPs across the EU's 28 member countries the green light to violate net neutrality consistently -- just as long as ISPs provide a few flimsy, faux-technical justifications. The rules are so filled with loopholes as to be useless, and while they technically took effect on April 30, the European Union's Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications (BEREC) has been cooking up new guidelines to help European countries interpret and adopt the new rules.

With BEREC's public comment period set to end on July 18, European net neutrality advocates are giving it one last shot to toughen up the shoddy rules. Fearing they might succeed, a coalition of twenty European telcos (and the hardware vendors that feed at their collective trough) have taped together something they're calling their "5G Manifesto," (pdf) which trots out some pretty familiar fear mongering for those who've remotely followed the last fifteen years of net neutrality debate.

Among them is the continued, not so veiled threat that technological progress will stop dead in its tracks if these companies don't get the kind of consumer net neutrality protections they want (namely, none):

"The EU and Member States must reconcile the need for Open Internet with pragmatic rules that foster innovation. The telecom Industry warns that the current Net Neutrality guidelines, as put forward by BEREC, create significant uncertainties around 5G return on investment. Investments are therefore likely to be delayed unless regulators take a positive stance on innovation and stick to it."

And the threat doesn't just involve next-gen wireless. The carriers also proceed to effectively argue that unless they're allowed to include huge gaping loopholes (like the existing exemption of "specialized services"), other technologies like VR, smart cars and smart cities will all be hurt (much like ISPs here in the States tried to argue that net neutrality rules would somehow hurt medical technology unless ISPs were allowed to discriminate):

"In this context we must highlight the danger of restrictive Net Neutrality rules, in the context of 5G
technologies, business applications and beyond. 5G introduces the concept of “Network Slicing” to accommodate a wide-variety of industry verticals’ business models on a common platform, at scale and with services guarantees. Automated driving, smart grid control, virtual reality and public safety services are examples of usecases with distinguished characteristics which call for a flexible and elastic configuration of resources
in networks and platforms, on a continuous basis, depending on demand, context and the nature of the service."

This is all, for lack of a more scientific term, unequivocal and total crap. The argument that "net neutrality rules will stop us from keeping your pace maker from working" is fear-based prattle with no foundation in reality. If anything, the EU's rules go well out of their way to ensure traffic can be treated differently (to an extreme fault). As for 5G, these upgrades are a necessary part of doing business, and carriers will invest in networks whether or not there's some flimsy net neutrality rules governing their behavior. Realize too that the "manifesto" is talking about rules as currently written that effectively say it's ok to violate net neutrality provided you support your anti-competitive behavior in veiled, faux technical justifications (see comments made by Sir Tim Berners-Lee).

In short, people should understand these European companies' lawyers and lobbyists directly wrote net neutrality rules pretty much ensuring they can do whatever they like -- about as "certain" as things are going to get -- yet they're still god-damned complaining.

When it isn't busy making empty threats, the manifesto trots out some similarly-meaningless promises, such as claims that the "right" net neutrality rules will result in scheduled large-scale 5G demonstrations by 2018, and the launch of 5G commercially in at least one city in every EU country by 2020. Again though, this was already happening with or without net neutrality rules. Tying the success or failure of network investment to net neutrality is a hollow bogeyman, one we've seen used repeatedly in countries where carrier executives twitch at the faintest specter of a regulator actually doing its job and protecting consumers from the aggressive abuse of uncompetitive telecom markets.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>chicken little's manifestohttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20160711/08523034933Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:45:00 PDTTechdirt Podcast Episode 79: What's Next For Net Neutrality?Leigh Beadonhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160628/11434534850/techdirt-podcast-episode-79-whats-next-net-neutrality.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160628/11434534850/techdirt-podcast-episode-79-whats-next-net-neutrality.shtml
Net neutrality has a long and complicated history, and despite some recent victories, that story is far from over. This week, Mike is joined by resident broadband expert Karl Bode to discuss what's next for net neutrality, and what we need to do to fight for it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>it ain't overhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20160628/11434534850Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:22:00 PDTWireless Industry Survey: Everybody Really Loves Zero RatingKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160407/06231734122/wireless-industry-survey-everybody-really-loves-zero-rating.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160407/06231734122/wireless-industry-survey-everybody-really-loves-zero-rating.shtmlglacially pondering whether or not zero rating (exempting some content from usage caps) is a bad idea, the wireless industry has decided to try and settle the argument. According to a new study by the wireless industry, 94% of Millennials are more likely to try a new online service if it's part of a free data offering, 98% are more likely to stay with a carrier that offers such services, and 94% of Millennials are likely to use more data if it doesn't count against their data plan. As intended, the survey resulted in a lot of varied news headlines insisting that "consumers actually like ISPs to play favorites on mobile data caps."

The study is, the CTIA proceeds to claim, proof positive that zero rating is a great thing for everybody, from companies to consumers. Just ask Meredith Attwell Baker, former FCC Commissioner, former Comcast lobbyist, and now the top lobbyist for the nation's biggest wireless operators:

"It is no surprise that Americans embrace free data services that offer wireless consumers more data, more competitive choices and more flexibility to try new mobile applications and content. Free data services empower consumers with the freedom to choose what works for their mobile life, and that’s an outcome that everyone should support,” said CTIA President and CEO Meredith Attwell Baker."

So, yeah, some problems. I requested and received the methodology (pdf) used in the commissioned Harris poll, and you'll be shocked to learn that the questions asked weren't particularly nuanced. After asking survey participants whether they were familiar with such terms as zero rating or sponsored data (the results of that inquiry weren't shared), the survey basically just consists of asking consumers whether or not they like "free stuff." If somebody's unaware of the current zero rating net neutrality debate and is asked if they like "free stuff," it seems pretty clear what kind of answer they're going to give.

And therein sits the problem with zero rating. The majority of consumers still don't really understand what zero rating is, much less that there's some obvious hidden costs involved. As such, when approached with "free" services, they're thrilled.

They generally don't understand that the usage caps selected by their ISP are an arbitrary, artificial construct to begin with, untethered to financial or network congestion reality. Or that the very practice of giving wealthier, bigger companies cap-exempt status puts other smaller companies (and non-profits and educational efforts) at a very real disadvantage in the market. Or that over the years, data has shown that caps aren't an effective way to target network congestion, can hinder innovation, hurt competitors (especially if an ISP's exempting only its own services), and confuse consumers, many of whom aren't even sure what a gigabyte is. So yes, it's complicated, and requires some education.

Sure, even after being informed there's surely many people who simply adore the idea of getting anything for "free." But had the CTIA made the slightest effort to inform survey participants or explore zero rating more deeply, the survey's results would have been dramatically different.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>hidden-hidden-costshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20160407/06231734122Wed, 2 Mar 2016 06:28:00 PST5G Wireless Hype Overshadows Fact Nobody Actually Knows What 5G Is YetKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160224/09315333700/5g-wireless-hype-overshadows-fact-nobody-actually-knows-what-5g-is-yet.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160224/09315333700/5g-wireless-hype-overshadows-fact-nobody-actually-knows-what-5g-is-yet.shtmlnobody actually knows what 5G is yet. And when it does finally get solidified, it's likely to be 2020 or later before actual launches occur.

For marketing departments, this apparently wasn't a problem, but an opportunity. Verizon immediately set to work well ahead of any standard ratification, telling anybody who'll listen that the company has begun trialing 5G wireless service capable of 1 Gbps, with deployment scheduled for sometime in 2017. That resulted in a lot of press outlets crowing that we'll be enjoying wireless service faster than Google Fiber in just a few years. But to be clear, Verizon's testing a lot of technologies that may or may not be part of 5G, including beam forming, NFV and SDN integration, and millimeter wave technologies.

But these early trials (focused mostly on fixed, not handset, 5G) overshadow the fact that there's still multiple global partners and a wide variety of coalitions debating what the standard will even look like. A hard standard isn't actually expected to emerge until 2018, with actual real-world deployment not expected until 2020 (which in telecom terms means 2021 or 2022). Verizon competitor T-Mobile isn't mincing words when it comes to what Verizon's up to:

"We're starting to see a lot of news starting to form in and around the 5G space," T-Mobile CTO Neville Ray said during a conference call to discuss the carrier's quarterly earnings. "I think folks have seen some of the earlier announcements, and you know, Verizon trying to move and saying they're going to be the first to 5G, well, it's kind of BS, to be honest."

Entertaining T-Mobile CEO John Legere was a little more blunt in his assessment of Verizon's planned 2017 5G "launch":

"That's pure horseshit; it's not going to happen," Legere said on the call. "Either (McAdam) doesn't know, or what they're attempting to do is what they've done before several times, to connect the current (capabilities) to a long-term strategy for 5G, but call it 5G way before the standards or the handset capabilities are available."

Why's Verizon marketing 5G so hard, so early? As competitive pressure from T-mobile has grown, Verizon has found it harder and harder to avoid having to compete directly on price. Verizon avoids direct price competition like a chatty, annoying party attendee, arguing price competition isn't necessary because Verizon has the superior network. But as T-Mobile's network has gained ground, Verizon's argument has started to run out of runway. Enter 5G: something Verizon can "beat" the other carriers at even if nobody actually knows what the race track even looks like:

"We’re so far away from it, it’s not even funny,” Recon Analytics’ Roger Entner said. “There is a lot of prep work going on, but to a certain extent this all reminds me of a toddler wearing a Harvard class of 2035 bib. So we have to be measured with our enthusiasm.”...“In a marathon run, we’ve barely passed the 100 meter line,” Entner said. “It’s way too early (to tell who’s ahead), so everybody is just saying ‘Hey, we’re out of the starting blocks, look at us.’ But all of them are neck and neck with each other."

Ah, marketing. That's not to say 5G doesn't offer some major reasons to be excited, and it will usher forth the start of wireless actually being a stronger fixed-line broadband alternative. But with the kind of pricing companies like Verizon have pushed with their 4G services, whether you'll be able to afford the next-generation leap is another question entirely. And given that the United States currently sits 55th in terms of overall current 4G LTE speeds, 5G's potential doesn't mean U.S. carriers should get too far ahead of themselves.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>first!https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20160224/09315333700Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:33:10 PSTAfter Aereo's Collapse, Founder Hopes To Disrupt Wireless Broadband Market With 'Starry'Karl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160127/09283133446/after-aereos-collapse-founder-hopes-to-disrupt-wireless-broadband-market-with-starry.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160127/09283133446/after-aereos-collapse-founder-hopes-to-disrupt-wireless-broadband-market-with-starry.shtmlnotably ugly ruling by the Supreme Court. Undaunted, Kanojia has returned with a new plan to try and disrupt the frequently pricey wireless broadband industry. Kanojia's trying to do this via a new startup named "Starry," unveiled at a launch event this week in New York. Starry is promising to offer users uncapped, gigabit speeds at prices less than most people pay their incumbent broadband provider.

Kanojia claims that the service will deliver this ultra-fast connectivity via what it's calling the country's "first millimeter active phased array technology." FCC documents suggest that Starry will utilize spectrum in the 38 GHz band to deliver broadband to urban areas via hundreds of rooftop nodes scattered around the city. Users are given both a "Starry Point" antenna that sits outside their window, and need to buy a fancy $350 router called a "Starry Station" to connect to their various Wi-Fi devices. Kanojia tells TechCrunch that the technology will only cost around $25 per home to deploy:

"It costs the cable guys around $2,500 per home to deal with the construction costs of laying down cable,” said Kanojia on a phone call, setting the scene for his next big unveil. “And beyond cost, there are regulatory hurdles that slow down the process. We can deliver faster broadband with no regulatory wait time and it will cost us only $25 per home.” Kanojia won’t disclose pricing but says that the service will offer various tiers based on speed (up to 1GB up and down) and that it will be “orders of magnitude cheaper” than current broadband providers like Comcast and Time Warner Cable."

The catch? One, nobody really knows specifically how well Starry's phased array technology is going to work (especially in regards to line of sight), and Starry isn't offering much hard technical detail right now beyond a YouTube video. If it does work, millimeter wave technology will still require the deployment of hundreds if not thousands of nodes across a city, distance limitations restricting its use to only denser urban areas. The broadband landscape is littered with the corpses of thousands of urban WISPs, which still rely on incumbent bandwidth, and still require slow, cumbersome deployment of a sizable amount of gear.

And while real-world disruption of national incumbents will probably be minimal, it's still refreshing and absolutely necessary to see somebody try (and fortunately there's spectrum available to try with). According to Starry, users can pre-order the self-install kits at the Starry website, after which they'll be made available at Amazon and other retailers. The service will launch first in Boston in March. Variety got wind of the fact that around fifteen cities should be unveiled as launch markets sometime this year, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, Washington D.C., Seattle and Denver.

And while nobody actually knows whether Starry will really work, with no real regulatory or legal hurdles in its path,
Kanojia's latest attempt at disruption -- at the very least -- shouldn't wind up face down and unconscious at the Supreme Court.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>good-luck-out-therehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20160127/09283133446Thu, 3 Dec 2015 06:41:41 PSTMother Blames Daughter's Suicide On WiFi AllergyKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151202/09402732971/mother-blames-daughters-suicide-wifi-allergy.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151202/09402732971/mother-blames-daughters-suicide-wifi-allergy.shtmlmany years now we've discussed the unflagging belief on some fronts that WiFi is capable of making people sick, despite no scientific evidence supporting this belief. Getting some shouldn't be hard, yet the "electromagnetically sensitive" have yet to prove they're capable of even detecting the presence of WiFi signals during double blind studies. That hasn't stopped many of them from flinging lawsuits about, suing schools for making their kids sick, or even forcing school districts to eliminate WiFi entirely.

Every time I write something highlighting the absurdity of this behavior I'm accosted by individuals wielding "proof" of WiFi's disastrous impact on the human body in the form of lengthy pdf lists of new age websites and aggressively-unscientific "studies." It's enough to, like, totally pollute my aura.

And once again, WiFi allergies have stumbled into the headlines, with one UK mom's claim that a WiFi allergy drove her 15-year-old daughter to suicide. The girl was found dead in a wooded area near the family's home after sending a text message to her friend warning her of the suicide. The tragedy has been compounded by the mother's decision to blame the WiFi at her daughter's school for the death of the child:

"As soon as Jenny walked away from a router she felt instantly better so she was almost hunting out areas of the school which weren't covered by WiFi just to do her work. "I remember saying to the school 'if someone had a peanut allergy you wouldn't make them work surrounded by peanuts'. "Just because WiFi is new and all around us doesn't mean it is safe. WiFi and children do not mix. Much more research needs to be done into this because I believe that WiFi killed my daughter."

Unsurprisingly the coroner couldn't find medical evidence of any such sickness. And overall scientific evidence still doesn't support the narrative of WiFi illness. As the World Health Organization has noted, nobody claiming to suffer from such a disorder has been able to show they can actually detect radio frequency fields, which, given the seemingly common nature of the complaint, would have happened at this point. None of this is to pretend that the medical profession is infallible (as controversy surrounding prolonged Lyme disease symptoms clearly illustrates), but the science supporting WiFi-caused illness just isn't there.

More often than not the "tiredness, headaches and bladder problems" have other causes, ranging from a miserable diet and lack of exercise to mold or other more subtle disorders and diseases. Making entire school systems less productive because your gut believes WiFi poses a fatal threat remains categorically absurd, no matter how unfortunate the tragedy or understandable the grief.